Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22 - Issue 4

4 / 32

Our mission is to contribute to excellence in public service management
Editorial
Editor-in-Chief: Patrice Dutil
Associate Editor: Nestor Arellano
Editorial Advisory Board
Vic Pakalnis, Mirarco, Laurentian University; Denise Amyot,
CEO, ACCC; Lisa Sullivan, Federal Youth Network; Jodi LeBlanc,
Veterans Affairs; Guy Gordon, Manitoba; Shelley Pelkey,
Institute of Internal Audit; Peter Jones, OCADU; Murray
Kronick, Interis Consulting
sales
Director, Content & Business Development: José Labao
905-727-4091, x231
Vice President, Sales: Terri Pavelic
905-727-4091 x225
Events
Director, Social Content & Events: Laskey S. Hart
905-727-4091, x235
art & production
Art Director: Elena Pankova
Subscriptions and Address Changes
Circulation Director: Mary Labao
905-841-7389
General Inquiries
23-4 Vata Court, Aurora, ON, L4G 4B6
Phone 905-727 4091 Fax 905-727-4428
corporate
Group Publisher: John Jones
Publisher’s Mail Agreement: 41132537 ISSN 1203-7893
Canadian Government Executive magazine is published 10 times per
year by Navatar Press. All opinions expressed herein are those of the
contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher
or any person or organization associated with the magazine. Letters,
submissions, comments and suggested topics are welcome, and should
be sent to
Reprint Information:
Reproduction or photocopying is prohibited without the publisher’s prior
written consent. High quality reprints of articles and additional copies of
the magazine are available through
Privacy Policy:
We do not sell our mailing list or share any
confidential information on our subscribers.
We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada
through the Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities.
4 / Canadian Government Executive // April 2016
I write this on the morrow of the federal budget, when the goodies falling out of the
government’s piñata are being collected. The Trudeau government has clearly chosen
to reengage the federal state on a number of issues. There are many exciting new direc-
tions and commitments that are worth considering.
Inspired by Paul Dufour’s thoughtful piece on the search for a science policy advisor in
this month’s issue, I paid particular attention at what the Liberals are thinking on this file.
I never thought “Science Policy” had much resonance outside a few buildings in Ot-
tawa and in some of the halls of academia, yet for the late Conservative government,
it turned out to be lightning rod. It was not just a matter of programs. I was amazed by
countless conversations with friends and acquaintances who had never paid attention
to “science” before but who were now adamantly criticizing the government’s attitude
towards the collection of empirical evidence. The backlash over the census was only
the most evident manifestation of that. The reaction spread, however, as more people
started to track what could be considered the government’s anti-intellectual bias. Some
called it a Conservative “war on science” that affected the government’s policy on envi-
ronmental protection, a host of regulatory matters, and education policy.
The new budget promises an immediate $73 million increase for Canada’s research
grant councils—a substantial climb after years of neglect. The new “Post-Secondary
Institutions Strategic Investment fund” will eventually pour $500M/year (starting in
2017-18) to help universities and colleges modernize their laboratory facilities and to
“expand on-campus incubators that support start-ups as they grow their businesses.”
No word on the long-form census, but the government is clearly not afraid of support-
ing science and is showing an openness to what it can bring to an economy that has to
be focused on preparing the future.
So, this is a bit of welcomed fresh air. The policy will have coherence and convic-
tion, however, only when it comes informed with the help of a scientific advisor. The
national government under Prime Minister Paul Martin had actually created this posi-
tion, and it was occupied by Dr. Arthur Carty, a chemist, from 2004 to 2008. The Harper
government had no time for him and his issues, and the office was closed. The new
administration is committed to reviving this office, and Paul Dufour’s article in this is-
sue scrutinizes the horizon on what could be adopted.
Making sure a very busy prime minister is properly advised on science is a good
thing, but it is not the solution in itself. As Dufour points out, parliament needs educa-
tion just as much. Of the 338 members in the House of Commons, only two individuals
list themselves as scientists (both from Manitoba). Four members are physicians; three
from Ontario and one from Manitoba (again!). Fourteen members are listed as engi-
neers: Twelve of them are Liberals; two are Conservatives; five are from Quebec, seven
from Ontario and one each hails from Newfoundland and Labrador and British Colum-
bia. In all of the above categories, none are New Democrats (what is going on here?).
Put them all together, throw in a handful of people who list themselves as “environ-
mentalists” (hello, New Democrats) and you have maybe twenty-five members in the
new Parliament that have more than a passing acquaintance with science. That is less
than eight percent of the House of Commons. This is the institution that will prepare
the country for a “scientific future”?
Other countries have taken on the job of educating their elected representatives. We
need to act on this also. It can only make for better policy and better legislation.
The Liberal government is also committed to reengaging with the public service. This
is important at a general level, but the issue can be reduced to a personal one also. What
is a government executive to do in order to reengage what once was a high-performing
employee who has lost the verve for service? I asked Dr. Craig Dowden, a specialist in
Human Resource Management and Leadership, to consider this problem. His thoughtful
piece in this issue you will find enlightening. It’s all about reengagement.
Making Room for a Little Science
editor’s note Patrice Dutil
web